International Business Research; Vol. 7, No.

3; 2014
ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

The Impact of Supply Chain Management Practices on Supply Chain

Performance in Jordan: The Moderating Effect of Competitive
Intensity
Ayman Bahjat Abdallah1, Bader Yousef Obeidat2 & Noor Osama Aqqad2
1
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Applied Science University, Jordan
2
Department of Business Management, Faculty of Business, The University of Jordan, Jordan
Correspondence: Ayman Bahjat Abdallah, Department of Business Administration, Faculty of Economics and
Administrative Sciences, Applied Science University, Amman 11931, P.O.Box 166, Jordan. Tel:
962-786-951282. E-mail: aymanabdallah@yahoo.com

Received: December 13, 2013 Accepted: December 30, 2013 Online Published: February 24, 2014
doi:10.5539/ibr.v7n3p13 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v7n3p13

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to test the impact of supply chain management practices on supply chain
performance in terms of supply chain efficiency and supply chain effectiveness. Additionally, we investigate the
moderating effect of competitive intensity on the relationship between supply chain management practices and
supply chain performance. Data for this research were collected from 104 manufacturing companies in Jordan.
Hierarchical regressions were used to test the hypothesized relationships. The results indicate that three supply
chain management practices, internal integration, information sharing, and postponement, but not supplier
integration and customer integration, significantly and positively affect supply chain efficiency performance.
Competitive intensity moderates the relationship between each of internal integration, supplier integration, and
customer integration, and supply chain efficiency performance. The results also show that three supply chain
management practices, internal integration, customer integration, and postponement, but not supplier integration
and information sharing, significantly and positively affect supply chain effectiveness performance. Competitive
intensity moderates the relationship between each of customer integration and information sharing, and supply
chain effectiveness performance.
Keywords: supply chain management, supply chain performance, supply chain efficiency, supply chain
effectiveness, competitive intensity
1. Introduction
Supply chain management (SCM) has become a hot research area during the last decade. Many research papers
were published in an attempt to develop SCM practices and to investigate their impact on operational,
organizational, and supply chain performance (e.g., Li et al., 2004; Flynn et al., 2010; Cook & Heiser, 2011;
Ibrahim & Ogunyemi, 2012). However, the results of the existing research are characterized by mixed and
contradicting results leading to confusion among researchers. Part of the contradicting results is attributed to the
usage of different practices to measure SCM and supply chain performance. Another part of the mixed results
could be attributed to overlooking some vital contextual factors that may potentially explain the variation of the
results in the SCM literature. Additionally, SCM research is mainly focused on companies in developed countries.
Companies in developing countries face a real challenge to improve their operational capabilities, including
SCM, in order to be able to compete and survive in today’s competitive environment. Competition has
dramatically increased during the last two decades. The current business environment is characterized by factors
such as globalization, free trade agreements, and open markets. To shed more light on the relationship between
SCM practices and SC performance, we include competitive intensity as a moderating variable to investigate its
effect on this relationship.
The competitive situation in Jordan today is similar to many other countries. Up to the new millennium; the
manufacturing sector in Jordan had been protected from foreign competitors by different entry barriers and
regulations imposed by the government. Also, the manufacturers of Jordan enjoyed a favorable export market to
Iraq until 2003. At the dawn of the new millennium, the government of Jordan started a new era of reforms to

13
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

improve the economic situation and attract foreign investments to the country. Several new international
agreements were signed, which completely changed the traditional protection for local industries including the
manufacturing sector, such as free trade agreements with the United States, Canada, Turkey, and Singapore,
membership of World Trade Organization (WTO), partnership agreement with the European Union, and
membership of the Arabic free trade zone (www.mit.gov.jo).
1.1 Purpose of the Paper
To address the raised issues, we explored the impact of SCM practices on SC performance in manufacturing
companies in Jordan. We conducted a thorough review of the published SCM literature to determine the most
widely used SCM practices and SC performance dimensions. We then examined the impact of individual SCM
practices on SC performance dimensions. Next, we sought to test the effect of competitive intensity on this
relationship. Our study is expected to make a considerable contribution to the exiting literature as most
companies today operate under high levels of competitive intensity.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Supply Chain Management
Several definitions of supply chain management were proposed by researchers in the literature. Stock and Boyer
(2009) defined SCM as “The management of a network of relationships within a firm and between
interdependent organizations and business units consisting of material suppliers, purchasing, production facilities,
logistics, marketing, and related systems that facilitate the forward and reverse flow of materials, services,
finances and information from the original producer to final customer with the benefits of adding value,
maximizing profitability through efficiencies, and achieving customer satisfaction”.
Researchers have pointed to several objectives and goals of SCM. Williams (2006) stated that long term
objectives include improving efficiency and effectiveness of supply chain partners, improving market share and
profits, and increasing customer satisfaction. Short term objectives of SC include increasing productivity, and
reducing cycle time and inventories (Wisner & Tan, 2000).
Several dimensions and practices of SCM were proposed in the literature. Cook and Heiser (2011) defined the
following SCM practices: information sharing, long range relationships, advanced planning techniques,
leveraging the internet, and supply and distribution network structures. They found a positive relationship
between SCM practices and organizational performance with the moderating effect of supply chain role. Li et al.
(2004) developed and validated five dimensions of SCM practices: supplier and customer relationships, level and
quality of information sharing, and postponement. They found a positive effect of SC practices on competitive
advantage and organizational performance. Jabbour et al. (2011) identified and validated the following SCM
constructs: SC integration, information sharing, customer and supplier relationships, and postponement. Sezen
(2008) investigated SCM in terms of the following aspects: SC integration, SC information sharing, and SC
design. He found that none of the three SCM practices affected flexibility performance, and only SC design
affected output performance and resource performance. Sundram et al. (2011) measured SCM using the
following constructs: supplier and customer relationships, level and quality of information sharing,
postponement, agreed goals and vision, and reward/risk sharing. They found that all SCM practices, except
customer relationship, positively affected SC performance. Ibrahim and Ogunyemi (2012) investigated SCM in
terms of supplier and customer partnerships, and level and quality of information sharing. They found that SCM
practices were positively related to both SC performance and export performance. Lee et al. (2007) measured
SCM using the following practices: customer linkage, supplier linkage, and internal linkage. They found that
internal integration is the most contributing practice to cost performance while integration with the supplier is
the most important practice to SC reliable performance. Flynn et al. (2010) investigated the impact of SC
integration on operational and business performance. They found that internal integration and customer
integration were positively related to operational performance, while only internal integration was related to
business performance. They also found that supplier integration was neither related to operational nor to business
performance.
Based on our literature review, we defined five SCM practices as the most frequently used practices in the SC
literature: supplier integration, internal integration, customer integration, information sharing, and postponement.
These practices will be used in our study. We discuss these practices in the following sub-sections.
2.1.1 Supplier Integration
Supplier integration is defined as “The long-term relationship between the organization and its suppliers. It is
designed to leverage the strategic and operational capabilities of individual participating organizations to help

14
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

them achieve significant ongoing benefits” (Li et al., 2004).

Supplier integration characterized by various aspects and activities such as information sharing, coordination,
trust, shared technology, integrated processes, long-term contracts, assisting suppliers to improve production
processes, fostering quality improvements, investing in supplier’s assets, including suppliers in new product
development, improving supplier’s overall capabilities, risk and reward sharing, and shared gains from
development efforts (Dyer et al., 1998; Echtelt et al., 2008). As such, integration results in improved decision
making, enhanced knowledge sharing, aligned capabilities, built learning routines, and increased performance of
SC partners (Echtelt et al., 2008).
Trust enhances the degree of commitment between the two parties, reduces transactional costs, improves
cooperation, enhances the satisfaction of the two parties, decreases the formal contracts, and reduces conflicts
(Sahay, 2003).
2.1.2 Internal Integration
Internal integration is defined as “the degree to which a manufacturer structures its own organizational strategies,
practices and processes into collaborative, synchronized processes, in order to fulfill its customers’ requirements
and efficiently interact with its suppliers” (Flynn et al., 2010). Internal integration is an essential practice that
should be implemented prior to moving to achieve external integration (Vanichchinchai & Igel, 2009). Internal
integration deals with integrating and linking information among different organizational departments, creating
an easy access to inventory information, developing an easy accessed integrated database that encompasses main
operational data, integrating production processes using advanced information systems, and linking production
and marketing departments using computerized planning systems (Lee et al., 2007).
2.1.3 Customer Integration
Customer integration is defined as “demand management practices through long-term customer relationship,
satisfaction improvement, and complaint management” (Tan et al., 1998). The fundamental aspect of customer
relationship is the focus on key customers to understand their needs and requirements and to satisfy them (Sheth
et al., 2000).
Customer integration includes different activities and practices such as integrated problem-solving initiatives,
direct customer contacts, managing customer complaints, increasing customer satisfaction, and establishing
long-range relations with customers (Boulding et al., 2005; Sousa, 2003; Tan et al., 1998).
Customer integration is expected to yield different benefits to organizations. Such benefits include the ability to
differentiate products from competitors, increased market share and retention of profitable customers, improved
customer loyalty, quickly resolving potential problems, shared knowledge and expertise concerning new
technologies, deep understanding of customer needs, and rapid responses to customers (Magretta, 1998; Wasti &
Jeffrey, 1999).
2.1.4 Information Sharing
Information sharing is defined as “The extent to which critical and proprietary information is communicated to
one’s supply chain partner” (Li et al., 2004). The advancements of information technology have greatly
contributed to the evolution of sharing information throughout the SC. Regular exchanges of information enables
SC parties to perform as a single body (Stein & Sweat, 1998). Shared information has different kinds related to
inventory, resources, products, demands, delays, and planning information (Sakka & Botta-Genoulaz, 2009). It
may also include information about quality, logistics, customer and general market information, and design
information (Singh, 2013). In order to yield best results, shared information has to be adequate, accurate,
credible, and timely (Li et al., 2004). Information sharing affects performance in terms of improved customer
responsiveness, decreased costs, enhanced service levels, and reduced levels of complexity (Zhao et al., 2002).
2.1.5 Postponement
Postponement is defined as “the practice of moving forward as far as possible one or more operations or
activities to a later point in the supply chain” (Van Hoek et al., 1999). Postponement will be the appropriate SC
strategy in the following situations: costly and expensive products, short product life cycles, long delivery time,
high demand variance, high degree of customization, innovative products, high variety of products with low
volume, and low delivery shipments (Pagh & Cooper, 1998; Van Hoek, 2001).
Postponement brings several benefits to companies. It enables companies to control the risks related to product
diversity and uncertain demand, increases flexibility, enables companies to keep their options open before the
availability of sufficient information, reduces SC costs by keeping undifferentiated inventories, reduces levels of

15
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

inventory, improves forecasting effectiveness, facilitates mass customization, and reduces production cycle times
(Yang et al., 2005; Li et al., 2004).
2.2 Supply Chain Performance
There is no consensus among researchers concerning the best measures of SC performance (Ibrahim &
Ogunyemi, 2012; Flynn et al., 2010). Jeong and Hong (2007) measured SC performance in terms of delivery
reliability, responsiveness, flexibility, cost, and efficiency. Sezen (2008) used flexibility, output, and resource
performance to measure SC performance. Lee et al. (2007) measured SC performance using cost-containment
and reliability measures. Vanichchinchai and Igel (2009) used the variables of cost, flexibility, relationship, and
responsiveness to measure SC performance. Ibrahim and Ogunyemi (2012) measured SC performance using SC
flexibility and SC efficiency. Some authors used one construct to measure SC performance (i.e., Sundram et al.,
2011; Gunasekaran et al., 2004; Elmuti, 2002). Efficiency and effectiveness aspects have been widely used in the
literature to measure SC performance (Lee et al., 2007; Ibrahim & Ogunyemi, 2012; Tan et al., 1998; Li et al.,
2006). Gunasekaran et al. (2004) argued that flexibility is the most important and critical variable to measure SC
effectiveness.
We used in this study the measures of efficiency and effectiveness to measure SC performance. Efficiency means
the usage of minimum inputs while effectiveness is related to meeting customer’s unique needs and demand
variability (Fawcett & Clinton, 1996). Efficiency is usually reflected by using cost and inventory turnover
measures (Gunasekaran et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2007). Effectiveness is reflected by using flexibility performance,
delivery performance, customer responsiveness, and time to market (Li et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2007; Ibrahim &
Ogunyemi, 2012).
3. Framework and Research Hypotheses
3.1 Research Framework
The proposed framework for this research is illustrated in Figure 1. The framework shows the impact of SCM
practices on SC performance in terms of SC efficiency and SC effectiveness. To reflect more accurate analysis
between SCM practices and SC performance, the function of competitive intensity is moderated. The research
hypotheses are discussed in this section.

Competitive Intensity

SCM Practices
 Supplier integration SC Performance
 Internal integration  SC efficiency
 Customer integration  SC effectiveness
 Information sharing
 Postponement
Figure 1. Research framework

3.2 Research Hypotheses

3.2.1 The Impact of SCM Practices on SC Performance
Supplier integration implies that companies will tend to work with fewer suppliers. As such, cost of supplied
materials will be reduced due to economies of scale for suppliers (Zhao et al., 2013). Supplier integration also
minimizes the inspections of incoming materials as the customer firm will have an impetus to assist and certify
suppliers on quality management resulting in improved productivity and quality and better design of parts (De
Toni & Nassimbeni, 2000). Moreover, supplier integration will ensure a flexible and reliable supply of materials
in a mass customization environment at a low cost (Liu et al., 2010). Furthermore, integrating suppliers in new
product development activities result in improved product quality, reduced development time and engineering
changes, reduced costs, and early resolved potential problems of the supplier (De Toni & Nassimbeni, 2000).
Generally, supplier integration positively affects lead time performance, manufacturing performance (Vachon &
Klassen, 2008), delivery performance, customer service, and competitive advantage (Gimenz & Ventura, 2005).
H1a: Supplier integration is positively related to SC efficiency.

16
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

H2a: Supplier integration is positively related to SC effectiveness.

Internal integration allows companies to meet and improve production scheduling through cross-functional
integration, supply and demand planning, production scheduling and planning, and customer demand
management (Stratman & Roth, 2002). Internal integration minimizes conflicts and misinterpretations, facilitates
the flow of information among different functions, and focuses all the efforts towards fulfilling customer orders
and requirements in a timely manner. Well integrated functions result in reduced inventories, enhanced delivery
speed, and increased customer responsiveness (Zhao et al., 2013). Gimenez and Ventura (2003) found
empirically that internal integration had a positive influence on performance.
H1b: Internal integration is positively related to SC efficiency.
H2b: Internal integration is positively related to SC effectiveness.
Customer integration allows companies to enhance customer responsiveness due to increased ability to anticipate
and track customer complaints, demands, and needs (Hausman & Stock, 2003). Kratochvil and Carson (2005)
argued that customer integration leads to reduced steps in a business process and minimized losses by
eliminating misunderstanding in the order process, which subsequently result in lower costs, improved quality
and delivery, and increased customer responsiveness. Companies are forced to indentify customer needs and
wants in a timely manner in order to be able to respond to their varying preferences. Integrating customers
allows companies to identify their needs and address them through SC tasks such as continuous replenishment,
flexibility and stock management, and on time delivery (Cox et al., 2003). Customer integration enables
companies to differentiate their products from rivals and considerably enhance the provided value to customers
and increase customer satisfaction and loyalty (Cox, 2004).
H1c: Customer integration is positively related to SC efficiency.
H2c: Customer integration is positively related to SC effectiveness.
Moberg et al. (2002) asserted that timely and shared information in the SC results in more accurate decisions and
can be regarded as a pillar of superior performance. Shared information enables companies to enhance inventory
control and management and increase inventory turnover. Furthermore, shared information among SC partners
improves delivery performance, logistics communication, and SC planning (Trevile et al., 2004). Additionally,
information sharing significantly reduces costs (Wang et al., 2006), shortens cycle time (Lin et al., 2002), and
improves overall SC performance (Zhao et al., 2002).
H1d: Information sharing is positively related to SC efficiency.
H2d: Information sharing is positively related to SC effectiveness.
Postponement enables companies to reduce inventory costs by avoiding holding large inventories. Additionally,
the quality of supplied materials is expected to be enhanced as frequent deliveries in small lots make it possible
to detect any quality problems at a very early stage. Postponement is also expected to increase flexibility levels
by enhancing the company’s ability to change the mix of products in a smooth and reliable manner. As a
subsequence, delivery performance of a firm is expected to be enhanced and improved. Postponement allows
companies to deal with demand uncertainties, demand variance, and short product life cycle in a dynamic and
changing environment (Huang & Li, 2009). Furthermore, postponement increases company’s ability to deliver
more customized products through flexibility (Van Hoek, 2001). As such, companies become more responsive
towards customer demand and eventually SC performance is expected to be enhanced.
H1e: Postponement is positively related to SC efficiency.
H2e: Postponement is positively related to SC effectiveness.
3.2.2 The Moderating Effects of Competitive Intensity.
Competitive intensity refers to the extent of competition in an industry (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). Competition is
usually intensive due to extensive promotional and advertising campaigns, introducing new and innovative
competitive ways by companies, and price wars (Slater & Narver, 1994). Jaworski and Kohli (1993) indicated
that when competition is low, companies can perform well, without being market-oriented since customers do
not have sufficient alternative options. They further indicated that when competition is high, customers have
several alternatives to please their requirements, and a company that is not market-oriented may lose its
customers to competitors. Fynes et al. (2005) asserted that in a competitive situation where differentiation
strategy is applied, high levels of SC linkages are essential to improve performance, while such strong linkages
may not be required in low competitive environments with less differentiation. Generally, the moderating effect
of competitive intensity is still unclear. On one hand, it may have a positive impact as it provides companies with

17
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

creativeness and opportunities (Jermias, 2006). While on the other hand, it may reduce the positive impact of
innovative practices on performance due to the associated risk of failure (García-Zamora et al., 2013).
H3a: The relationship between supplier integration and SC efficiency is moderated by competitive intensity.
H3b: The relationship between internal integration and SC efficiency is moderated by competitive intensity.
H3c: The relationship between customer integration and SC efficiency is moderated by competitive intensity.
H3d: The relationship between information sharing and SC efficiency is moderated by competitive intensity.
H3e: The relationship between postponement and SC efficiency is moderated by competitive intensity.
H4a: The relationship between supplier integration and SC effectiveness is moderated by competitive intensity.
H4b: The relationship between internal integration and SC effectiveness is moderated by competitive intensity.
H4c: The relationship between customer integration and SC effectiveness is moderated by competitive intensity.
H4d: The relationship between information sharing and SC effectiveness is moderated by competitive intensity.
H4e: The relationship between postponement and SC effectiveness is moderated by competitive intensity.
4. Methodology
4.1 Data Collection
A survey questionnaire was used to collect data for this study. To ensure content validity, the measurement scales
were developed after conducting a thorough review of the related SCM literature. The survey was pilot tested by
two professors that taught SCM courses, and pre-tested at two manufacturing companies, and was revised as
needed.
The research population represented all manufacturing plants in Jordan. To attain a good representation level,
one hundred and eighty manufacturing plants were visited personally by the authors. This is the common method
of collecting data in Jordan as companies tend to ignore questionnaires sent by mail or e-mail. The companies
were selected from different industries which included textile/garments, machinery, pharmaceutical, food,
electrical, and chemical. Our initial objective was to administer the survey to SC managers; however, our visits
revealed that some manufacturing companies did not have such a position. As such, we selected the manager
whose responsibilities were most closely related to SC manager’s duties, and requested him to fill out the
questionnaire. Those managers included production managers, plant managers, and general managers. Some
managers filled out the questionnaires in our presence, but the majority asked us to come back after some days to
receive the filled out questionnaires. We collected one hundred and eleven answered questionnaires. Seven
questionnaires were identified as unusable; four of them due to large amounts of missing data, and the other
three due to selecting the same answer for all question items, and were excluded from further analysis. One
hundred and four final usable questionnaires were used in the subsequent analysis representing a response rate of
57.7%. Table 1 below shows frequencies and percentages of responding manufacturing companies classified by
industry type.

Table 1. Manufacturing companies classified by industry type

Manufacturing type Frequency Percent

Electrical/electronic 14 13.46%
Textile/ garments 21 20.20%
food 17 16.34%
Machinery/industrial 29 27.89%
chemical 16 15.38%
pharmaceutical 7 6.73%
Total 104 100%

18
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

4.2 Measurement Analysis

To ensure high validity and reliability of our measurement scales, the survey was adapted from some frequently
cited previous studies (Lee et al., 2007; Ibrahim & Ogunyemi, 2012; Rajaguru & Matanda, 2009, Li et al., 2004;
Flynn et al., 2010; Vanichchinchai & Igel, 2009). One multi-item scale was used to measure each variable of our
independent and dependent variables. Respondents were asked to answer the question items using a seven-point
Likert scale where 1 pointed to strong disagreement and 7 pointed to strong agreement. To assess the reliability
of our measurement scales, factor analysis was used with principal component’s analysis to extract factors to
ensure that all questions within a scale loaded onto one factor with eigenvalue greater than 1. Questions that had
a factor loading less than 0.40 were excluded from further analysis.
Cronbach’s α-coefficient was applied to evaluate the reliability of the measurement scales. All 8 scales used in
our study met the suggested standard of α ≥ 0.70 indicating that they all were internally consistent (Nunnally,
1978).
Table 2 below shows the mean values, standard deviations, and cronbach’s α-coefficients for the study
constructs.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and cronbach’s α-coefficient

Variable Mean Standard deviation Cronbach's α-coefficient

1. Supplier integration 5.371 0.457 0.798

2. Internal integration 5.020 0.771 0.910

3. Customer integration 5.261 0.471 0.757

4. Information sharing 4.922 0.564 0.786

5. Postponement 4.573 0.491 0.711

6. Competitive intensity 5.405 0.658 0.785
7. SC Efficiency 4.779 0.717 0.874

8. SC effectiveness 5.576 0.809 0.764

5. Results and Discussion

We used hierarchical regression analysis to test our hypotheses. Two separate hierarchical regression models
were used, with one SC performance dimension as a dependent variable in each one. In the first hierarchical
regression model, SC efficiency was used as a dependent variable (Table 3). Three steps were used to test the
related hypotheses. In the first step, SCM practices were entered so that to investigate their impact on SC
efficiency, hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, and H1e. In the second step, the moderator variable, competitive
intensity, was included. In the third step, the interactions between competitive intensity and each SCM practice
were entered, hypotheses H3a, H3b, H3c, H3d, and H3e. Prior to performing the interaction terms, we
mean-centered SCM practices, the independent variables, and competitive intensity, the moderator variable, to
reduce potential muliticollinearity. In order to ensure that multicollinearity did not affect the results of the
regression analysis, variance inflation factor (VIF) diagnostic method was performed. The values of VIF ranged
less than 2.249 suggesting that multicollinearity did not influence the results of the regression model.
The results of the first step in the regression model showed that SCM practices as a block significantly
contributed to the explanation of the variance in the level of SC efficiency (R²adj = 0.280, P < 0.01). As for
individual SCM practices, three practices, internal integration, information sharing, and postponement positively
and significantly impacted SC efficiency. Supplier integration was negatively and significantly related to SC
efficiency, and customer integration was insignificantly related to SC efficiency. Hypotheses H1b, H1d, and
H1e were accepted while hypotheses H1a and H1c were rejected.
In the second step, the addition of competitive intensity into the regression model resulted in an additional
significant change (4.3%) of the variance in SC efficiency performance (p < 0.01). In the third step, the addition
of the interactions between competitive intensity and the five SCM practices resulted in a further significant
change in R² (13.3%, p < 0.01), implying that there was an additional increase in the predictive power of this
model. The results of the third step showed that competitive intensity had a positive and significant (p < 0.01)
impact on the relationship between supplier integration and SC efficiency, therefore hypothesis H3a was

19
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

accepted. The moderating effect of competitive intensity on the relationship between internal integration and SC
efficiency was found significant and positive (p < 0.01), supporting hypothesis H3b. Also, the results showed a
significant (p < 0.05), but negative moderating effect of competitive intensity on the relationship between
customer integration and SC efficiency, supporting H3c. Nonetheless, hypotheses H3d and H3e were not
supported because the results showed no moderating effects of competitive intensity on the relationship between
information sharing and SC efficiency as well as on the relationship between postponement and SC efficiency.
Our finding that supplier integration contributed significantly and negatively to SC efficiency might appear
surprising. However, understanding the costs associated with such integration may potentially explain this result.
Supplier integration includes several activities undertaken by the customer firm to develop supplier's capabilities
and competencies. Such activities may include quality improvement efforts, process improvement and redesign,
technology change, and other investments aiming at developing suppliers. The results suggested that such
activities will have a negative effect on SC efficiency in stable markets that are not characterized by intensive
competition. Our results were consistent with the findings of Swink et al. (2007) and Koufteros et al. (2005) who
found that supplier involvement had a negative effect on some performance dimensions. Our results were
inconsistent with the results of Lee et al. (2007) and Devaraj et al. (2007) who found that supplier integration
positively affected some performance dimensions. The results of the interaction effect showed that in
environments characterized by intensive competition, the impact of supplier integration on SC efficiency became
significant and positive. This is an important finding implying that the higher levels of supplier integration when
competitive intensity exists; the higher levels of SC efficiency are achieved. Investments in supplier
development activities are justified in competitive environments, and are expected to improve SC efficiency
performance of the customer firm.
Internal integration proved to be the most contributing SCM practice to SC efficiency. Also, the interaction effect
of competitive intensity on the relationship between internal integration and SC efficiency was significant and
positive. The findings implied that whether the markets are characterized by low competition or intensive
competition, internal integration represents a crucial SCM tool to improve SC efficiency. Our results were
consistent with the results of Flynn et al. (2010) and Saeed et al. (2005) who found that internal integration
affected operational performance and process efficiency respectively.
The main effects of information sharing and postponement on SC efficiency proved to be positive and significant.
No moderating effects were found of competitive intensity on the relationship between the two variables and SC
efficiency.
Customer integration did not contribute significantly to SC efficiency. Furthermore, the moderating effect of
competitive intensity on the relationship between customer integration and SC efficiency was significant and
negative. That means the higher customer integration efforts undertaken when competitive intensity exists, the
lower SC efficiency levels are yielded. Generally, our results were consistent with the results of Sundram et al.
(2011) and Lee et al. (2007) who found that customer integration did not affect SC performance and cost
performance respectively. The possible explanation is that customer integration efforts require additional
investments and resources to enable a timely and reliable contact with customers. While such contacts might be
necessary in competitive environments, their expected effect on SC efficiency is negative.
To test the rest of our hypotheses, we used the second hierarchical regression model with SC effectiveness
performance as a dependent variable (Table 4). In a similar manner, three steps were used to test the related
hypotheses. In the first step, SCM practices were entered as a block to examine their impact on SC effectiveness,
hypotheses H2a, H2b, H2c, H2d, and H2e. In the second step, the moderator variable, competitive intensity, was
added. In the third step, the interactions between competitive intensity and each SCM practice were entered,
hypotheses H4a, H4b, H4c, H4d, and H4e. The values of VIF ranged less than 2.634 suggesting that
multicollinearity was not a problem in the second regression model.
The results of the first step in the regression model showed that SCM practices as a block significantly
contributed to the explanation of the variance in the level of SC effectiveness (R²adj = 0.211, P < 0.01). As for
individual SCM practices, three practices, internal integration, customer integration, and postponement,
positively and significantly affected SC effectiveness performance. Supplier integration and information sharing
were insignificantly related to SC effectiveness. Hypotheses H1b, H1c, and H1e were accepted while
hypotheses H1a and H1d were rejected.

20
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

Table 3. Hierarchical regression analysis of efficiency

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

(Constant) 1.029 -0.259 -1.146

Independent variables
Supplier integration -0.397*** -0.471*** -0.337***
Internal integration 0.289*** 0.309*** 0.151
Customer integration 0.118 0.159* 0.161*
Information sharing 0.276** 0.257** 0.231*
Postponement 0.267*** 0.318*** 0.355***
Moderating variable

Competitive intensity (CI) 0.222*** 0.282***

Interaction effects

CI X Supplier integration 0.293***

CI X Internal integration 0.321 ***
CI X Customer integration -0.168**
CI X Information sharing -0.065
CI X Postponement -0.112
R² 0.310 0.353 0.486
Adj. R² 0.280 0.319 0.435
F 10.406*** 10.443*** 9.462***
R² change 0.043 0.133
F change 10.406*** 7.644*** 5.716***

*≤ 0.10; ** P≤ 0.05; *** P≤ 0.01.

In the second step, the addition of competitive intensity into the model resulted in an additional significant
change (2.8%) of the variance in SC effectiveness (p < 0.05). In the third step, the addition of the interactions
between competitive intensity and the five SCM practices resulted in an additional significant change in R²
(11.1%, p < 0.01), indicating that there was a further increase in the predictive power of this regression model.
The results of the third step showed that competitive intensity had a significant and positive (p < 0.05) effect on
the relationship between customer integration and SC effectiveness performance, supporting hypothesis H4c.
The results also showed that competitive intensity had a significant and positive (p < 0.05) impact on the
relationship between information sharing and SC effectiveness, supporting hypothesis H4d. The other three
hypotheses, H4a, H4b, and H4e, were rejected as the moderating effect was not found of competitive intensity on
the relationship between each of those practices and SC effectiveness.
The results indicated that supplier integration did not contribute to SC effectiveness. Our results were consistent
with the results of Flynn et al. (2010) and Stank et al. (2001) who found that supplier integration did not
contribute to operational performance. This result can be viewed and justified by different ways. First, supplier
integration may have an indirect effect on SC performance. Further studies are needed to investigate the direct
and indirect effects of SCM practices on SC performance. Second, based on the context of Jordanian
manufacturing companies that rely heavily on foreign suppliers, supplier integration might be viewed by several
companies as unnecessary SCM practice. Third, Jordanian manufacturing companies may have implemented
supplier integration having a strategic incentive to improve other dimensions of SC performance as well as
operational and business performance. Further studies are also needed to address this issue. Additionally, no
moderating effect was found of competitive intensity on the relationship between supplier integration and SC
effectiveness.
Internal integration demonstrated to be the most important SCM practice that influenced SC effectiveness. It was
also the most contributing practice that affected SC efficiency. Our results consistent with other studies that
pointed to the key role of internal integration for superior SC performance (e.g., Germain & Iyer, 2006; Droge et

21
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

al., 2004). The moderating effect of competitive intensity was insignificant and did not affect the relationship
between internal integration and SC effectiveness.
Customer integration was significantly and positively related to SC effectiveness. Furthermore, the moderating
effect of competitive intensity on the relationship between customer integration and SC effectiveness was
significant and positive. SC effectiveness included aspects such as flexibility, delivery, time to market, and
ability to deal with customer’s queries. Manufacturing companies may not be able to achieve high levels of SC
effectiveness without properly integrating customers. This even would be of critical importance in highly
competitive environments. Our results were consistent with the results of Flynn et al. (2010) and Lee et al. (2007)
who found that customer integration affected operational performance and reliability performance respectively.
The main effect of information sharing on SC effectiveness was positive, but insignificant. However, the
moderating effect of competitive intensity on the relationship between information sharing and SC effectiveness
was positive and significant. This is an important finding that highlighted the role of information sharing in
competitive environments. When low or moderate competition exists, the results suggested that information
sharing did not affect effectiveness of SC. Nonetheless, in highly competitive markets the higher the levels of
shared information, the higher the levels of SC effectiveness. Our results were inconsistent with the results of
Sezen (2008) who found that information sharing did not affect flexibility, output, and resource performance
dimensions. However, our results were consistent with the results of Zhao et al. (2002) and Moberg et al. (2002)
who found that information sharing affected SC performance.
Postponement proved to be positively and significantly related to SC effectiveness. The moderating effect of
competitive intensity on the relationship between postponement and SC effectiveness was negative, but
insignificant. Our results were consistent with the results of Li et al. (2004) and Sundram et al. (2011) who found
that postponement affected competitive advantage and SC performance respectively.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis of effectiveness

Variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
(Constant) -0.402 -1.570 -0.215
Independent variables
Supplier integration -0.144 -0.204* -0.213*
Internal integration 0.220** 0.236** 0.168
Customer integration 0.201** .234** 0.167*
Information sharing 0.174 0.158 .162
Postponement 0.215** 0.256*** 0.151
Moderating variable
Competitive intensity (CI) 0.178** **0.241
Interaction effects
CI X Supplier integration -0.050
CI X Internal integration 0.083
CI X Customer integration **0.218
CI X Information sharing 0.237**
CI X Postponement -0.213*
R² 0.244 .272 0.383
Adj. R² 0.211 .234 0.321
F 7.147*** 6.200***
R² change 0.028 0.111
F change 7.485*** 4.370** 3.960***

*≤ 0.10; ** P≤ 0.05; *** P≤ 0.01

22
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

6. Conclusions
This study sought to investigate the effects of SCM practices on SC efficiency and SC effectiveness with the
moderating effect of competitive intensity for a sample consisting of one hundred and four manufacturing
companies in Jordan. Based on our study, the subsequent conclusions were derived.
First, the results concerning the impact of SCM practices as a block on SC efficiency and effectiveness are in
line with previous research. Our study confirmed that SCM practices implemented by manufacturing companies
are good indicators of SC efficiency and effectiveness. Manufacturing companies are recommended to
implement SCM practices to enhance their performance.
Second, the study contributed to the existing research concerning SCM by investigating the impact of individual
SCM practices on SC efficiency. Our results revealed that internal integration, information sharing, and
postponement are the most important SCM practices respectively that affect SC efficiency.
Third, the results of our study indicated that while the impact of supplier integration on SC efficiency was
significant and negative, it became significant and positive under high levels of competitive intensity. The
existing studies provide contradicting and dissimilar results concerning the impact of supplier integration on
performance. Our study extends the SCM literature by indicating the importance of supplier integration as a
good indicator of SC efficiency in high competitive environments. The results also showed that the impact of
internal integration on SC efficiency became more significant under high levels of competitive intensity.
Fourth, our study contributed to SCM literature by investigating the impact of individual SCM practices on SC
effectiveness. The results showed that internal integration, postponement, and customer integration are the most
contributing SCM practices to SC effectiveness. The study addressed another contradicting question in the
literature concerning the impact of customer integration on SC performance. While customer integration did not
affect SC efficiency, it is of vital importance to reap high levels of SC effectiveness.
Fifth, our results indicated that impacts of both customer integration and information sharing on SC effectiveness
became more significant under high levels of competitive intensity. Manufacturing companies are recommended
to increase the levels of implementation of these two practices in highly competitive environments in order to
achieve superior levels of SC effectiveness.
The limitation of our study is that the data was collected from a single informant in each manufacturing plant. In
some cases, informants were only partially responsible for some SCM activities. Further studies are needed with
multiple informants so that to allow respondents to address their precise area of expertise resulting in a greater
validity of the findings. Our sample size represents another limitation as we could not investigate the indirect
effects of our variables. Additionally, we avoided using control variables such as firm size, firm age, and industry
type in order to reduce potential multicollinearity which is expected to affect the results by increasing the
number of variables in a regression model. Further studies are needed with larger sample size so that to
investigate indirect effects of the variables and to include control variables. Finally, we included only one
moderating effect in our framework. Other contextual factors may affect the relationship between SCM aspects
and SC performance. Further studies are needed to investigate the moderating effects of other variables such as
demand uncertainty, strategic goals, and innovation on the relationship between SCM practices and SC
performance.
References
Boulding, W., Staelin, R., Ehret, M., & Johnston, W. (2005). A CRM Roadmap: What We Know, Potential
Pitfalls, and Where to Go. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 155–167.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.155
Christopher, M. (1998). Logistics and Supply Chain Management (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Cook, L., & Heiser, D. (2011). The moderating effect of supply chain role on the relationship between supply
chain practices and performance: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management, 41(2), 104–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600031111118521
Cox, A. (2004). The art of the possible: relationship management in power regimes and supply Chains. Supply
Chain Management: An International Journal, 9(5), 346–356.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540410560739
Cox, H., Mowatt, S., & Prevezer, M. (2003). New product development and product supply within a network
setting: the chilled ready-meal industry in the UK. Industry and Innovation, 10(2), 197–217.

23
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1366271032000096644
De Toni, A., & Nassimbeni, G. (2000). Just-in-time purchasing: an empirical study of operational practices,
supplier development and performance. Omega, 28(6), 631–651.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(00)00016-5
Devaraj, S., Krajewski, L., & Wei, J. C. (2007). Impact of e-business technologies on operational performance:
the role of production information in the supply chain. Journal of Operations Management, 25(6),
1199–1216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2007.01.002
Droge, C., Jayaram, J., & Vickery, S. K. (2004). The effects of internal versus external integration practices on
time-based performance and overall firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 22(6), 557–573.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.08.001
Dyer, J. H., Cho, D. S., & Chu, W. (1998). Strategic supplier segmentation: the next “best practice” in supply
chain management. California Management Review, 40(2), 57–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41165933
Echtelt, F., Wynstra, F., Weele, A., & Duysters, G. (2008). Managing Supplier Involvement in New Product
Development: A Multiple-Case Study. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(2), 180–201.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00293.x
Elmuti, D. (2002). The Perceived Impact of Supply Chain Management on Organizational Effectiveness. The
Journal of Supply Chain Management, 38(2), 49–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2002.tb00135.x
Fawcett, S. E., & Clinton, S. R. (1996). Enhancing logistics performance to improve the competitiveness of
manufacturing organization. Production and Inventory Management, 37(1), 40–46.
Flynn, B. B., Huo, B., & Zhao, X. (2010). The impact of supply chain integration on performance: A
contingency and configuration approach. Journal of Operations Management, 28(1), 58–71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2009.06.001
Fynes, B., De Burca, S., & Voss, C. (2005). Supply chain relationship quality: the competitive environment and
performance. International Journal of Production Research, 43(16), 3303–3320.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540500095894
García-Zamora, E., González-Benito, O., & Muñoz-Gallego, P. (2013). Organizational and environmental factors
as moderators of the relationship between multidimensional innovation and performance. Innovation:
Management, Policy & Practice, 15(2), 224–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/impp.2013.15.2.224.
Gensheng, L., Shah, R., & Schroeder, R. (2010). Managing demand and supply uncertainties to achieve mass
customization ability. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 21(8), 990–1012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410381011086801
Germain, R., & Iyer, K. N. S. (2006). The interaction of internal and downstream integration and its association
with performance. Journal of Business Logistics, 27(2), 29–53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2006.tb00216.x
Gimenez, C., & Ventura, E. (2005). Logistics-production, logistics-marketing and external integration: Their
impact on performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 25(1), 20–38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570510572222
Gimenez, C., & Ventura, E. (2003). Supply Chain Management as a competitive advantage in the Spanish
grocery sector. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 14(1), 77–88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09574090310806558
Gunasekaran, A., Patel, C., & McGaughey, R. E. (2004). A framework for supply chain performance
measurement. Int. J. Production Economics, 87(3), 333–347. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijpe.2003.08.003.
Hausman, A., & Stock, J. R. (2003). Adoption and implementation of technological innovations within long-term
relationships. Journal of Business Research, 56(8), 681–686.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00313-7
Huang, Y., & Li, S. (2009). The application situation and determinants of postponement: A field survey for large
manufacturers in Greater China. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(6), 787–803.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410380910975078
Ibrahim, S. E., & Ogunyemi, O. (2012). The effect of linkages and information sharing on supply chain and
export performance: An empirical study of Egyptian textile manufacturers. Journal of Manufacturing

24
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

Technology Management, 23(4), 441–463. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410381211230394

Jabbour, A. B. L., Filho, A. G. A., Viana, A. B. N., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2011). Measuring supply chain
management practices. Measuring Business Excellence, 15(2), 18–31.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683041111131592.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing,
57(3), 53–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251854
Jeong, J. S., & Hong, P. (2007). Customer orientation and performance outcomes in supply chain management.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(5), 578–594.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410390710823707
Jermias, J. (2006). Competitive intensity as a quasi-moderator of the relationship between innovative efforts and
performance. International Journal of Business, 8(3), 281–299.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial
implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251866
Koufteros, X., Vonderembse, M., & Jayaram, J. (2005). Internal and external integration for product
development: the contingency effects of uncertainty, equivocality, and platform strategy. Decision Sciences,
36(1), 97–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2005.00067.x
Kratochvil, C., & Carson, C. (2005). Growing Modular: Mass Customization of Complex products, Services and
Software (1st ed.). Berlin: Springer.
Lee, C. W., Kwon, I. G., & Severance, D. (2007). Relationship between supply chain performance and degree of
linkage among supplier, internal integration, and customer. Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, 12(6), 444–452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540710826371.
Li, S., Ragu-Nathan, B., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Subba Rao, S. (2004). The impact of supply chain management
practices on competitive advantage and organizational performance. Omega, 34(2), 107–124.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2004.08.002
Lin, F., Huang, S., & Lin, S. (2002). Effects of information sharing on supply chain performance in electronic
commerce. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(3), 258–268.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2002.803388
Magretta, J. (1998). The power of virtual integration: an interview with Dell computers’ Michael Dell. Harvard
Business Review, 76(2), 72–84.
Moberg, C. R., Cutler, B. D., Gross, A., & Speh, T. W. (2002). Identifying antecedents of information exchange
within supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 32(9),
755–770. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030210452431
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pagh, J. D., & Cooper, M. C. (1998). Supply chain postponement and speculation strategies: how to choose the
right strategy. Journal of Logistics Management, 19(2), 13–33.
Saeed, K. A., Malhotra, M. K., & Grover, V. (2005). Examining the impact of interorganizational systems on
process efficiency and sourcing leverage in buyer-supplier dyads. Decision Sciences, 36(3), 365–396.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5414.2005.00077.x
Sahay, B. S. (2003). Understanding trust in supply chain relationships. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
103(8), 553–563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635570310497602
Sakka, O., & Botta-Genoulaz, V. (2009). A model of Factors Influencing the Supply Chain Performance.
Proceedings of CIE 2009, 913–918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICCIE.2009.5223796
Sezen, B. (2008). Relative effects of design, integration and information sharing on supply chain performance.
Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(3), 233–240.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540810871271
Sheth, J., Sisodia, R., & Sharma, A. (2000). The Antecedents and Consequences of Customer-Centric Marketing.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 55–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281006
Singh, R. K. (2013). Prioritizing the factors for coordinated supply chain using analytic hierarchy process (AHP).
Measuring Business Excellence, 17(1), 80–98. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1108/13683041311311383

25
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation—performance
relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1252250
Sousa, R. (2003). Linking quality management to manufacturing strategy: an empirical investigation of customer
focus practices. Journal of Operations Management, 21(1), 1–18.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-696302)00055-4
Stank, T. P., Keller, S. B., & Closs, D. J. (2001). Performance benefits of supply chain integration.
Transportation Journal, 41(2), 31–46.
Stein, T., & Sweat, J. (1998). Killer supply chains. Information week, 708(9), 36–46.
Stock, J., & Boyer, S. (2009). Developing a consensus definition of supply chain management: a qualitative
study. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(8), 690–711.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09600030910996323
Stratman, J., & Roth, A. V. (2002). Enterprise resource planning (ERP) competence constructs: two-stage
multiitem scale development and validation. Decision Sciences, 33(4), 601–628.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2002.tb01658.x
Sundram, V. P., Ibrahim, A. R., & Govindaraju, V. G. R. (2011). Supply chain management practices in the
electronics industry in Malaysia: Consequences for supply chain performance. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 18(6), 834–855. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14635771111180725
Swink, M., Narasimhan, R., & Wang, C. (2007). Managing beyond the factory walls: effects of four types of
strategic integration on manufacturing plant performance. Journal of Operations Management, 25(1),
148–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2006.02.006
Tan, K. C., Kannan, V. R., & Handfield, R. B. (1998). Supply chain management: supplier performance and firm
performance. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management, 34(3), 2–9.
Trevile, S. D., Shpiro, R. D., & Hameri, A. (2004). From supply chain to demand chain: the role of lead time
reduction in improving demand chain performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(6), 613–627.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2003.10.001
Vachon, S., & Klassen, R. D. (2008). Environmental management and manufacturing performance: the role of
collaboration in the supply chain. International Journal of Production Economics, 111(2), 299–315.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.11.030
Van Hoek, R. I. (2001). The rediscovery of postponement: a literature review and directions for research. Journal
of Operations Management, 19(2), 161–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(00)00057-7
Van Hoek, R. I., Vos, B., & Commandeur, H. R. (1999). Restructuring European supply chains by implementing
postponement strategies. Long Range Planning, 32(5), 505–518.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00071-0
Vanichchinchai, A., & Igel, B. (2009). Total quality management and supply chain management: Similarities and
differences. The TQM Journal, 21(3), 249–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542730910953022
Wang, E. T. G., Tai, J. C. F., & Wei, H. L. (2006). A Virtual Integration Theory of Improved Supply-Chain
Performance. Journal of Management Information Systems, 23(2), 41–64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222230203
Wasti, S., & Jeffrey, L. (1999). Collaborating with Suppliers in Product Development: A U.S. and Japan
Comparative Study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(2), 245–257.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/17.797966
Williams, S. (2006). Managing and developing suppliers: can SCM be adopted by SMES? International Journal
of Production Research, 44(18–19), 3831–3846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540600849133
Wisner, J., & Tan, K. (2000). Supply chain management and its impact on purchasing. Journal of Supply Chain
Management, 36(4), 33–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2000.tb00084.x
Yang, B., Burns, B., & Backhouse, C. (2005). An empirical investigation into the barriers to postponement.
International Journal of Production Research, 43(5), 991–1005.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207540412331316134
Zhao, X., Xie, J., & Zhang, W. (2002). The impact of information sharing and order-coordination on supply
chain performance. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 7(1), 24–40.

26
www.ccsenet.org/ibr International Business Research Vol. 7, No. 3; 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598540210414364
Zhao, L., Huo, B., Sun, L., & Zhao, X. (2013). The impact of supply chain risk on supply chain integration and
company performance: a global investigation. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 18(2),
115–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13598541311318773

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

27